Ok so we've agreed that the differences between Chinese and Danish are genetic (not environmental because that would mean that a chinese baby would grow up danish if born in Denmark... he might speak the language and adopt the local culture but he would still look chinese and not Danish... agreed?

(a) it is not a meaningless statement. It is crucial to the understanding of why your "but they look different" argument is irrelevant(b) yes he would in fact be Danish(c) why has his appearance got to do with anything? That is nothing to do with IQ.(d) I'm blocking you again because you are too retarded for words

a) it is totally meaningless... your genome is an individuals genetic make up. It therefore is totally dependent on your parents and cannot be 'rarely determined by race' it's literally nonsensical. You've been reading those left wing propaganda sites again haven't you?b) I've already said he would be culturally danish but would look no less chinese than if he (or she) was born in Chinac) see my previous postd) bye

Ok so we've agreed that the differences between Chinese and Danish are genetic (not environmental because that would mean that a chinese baby would grow up danish if born in Denmark... he might speak the language and adopt the local culture but he would still look chinese and not Danish... agreed?

(a) it is not a meaningless statement. It is crucial to the understanding of why your "but they look different" argument is irrelevant(b) yes he would in fact be Danish(c) why has his appearance got to do with anything? That is nothing to do with IQ.(d) I'm blocking you again because you are too retarded for words

LHCI don't believe IQ is wholly environmental and haven't suggested that. Just because something is affected by genetics doesn't mean it is affected by race. Genotype is rarely determined by race.

So you believe in the heritability of iq to a certain extent. Do you believe in population groups in more or less proximal relationships with each other? Average differences existing between those groups would be a natural outcome of a combination of the two.

The following is from Wikipedia, which is hardly known for being a bastion of racist thinking..

"The heritability of IQ for adults is between 58% and 77%[5] (with some more-recent estimates as high as 80%[6] and 86%.[7]) Genome-wide association studies have identified inherited genome sequence differences that account for 20% of the 50% of the genetic variation that contributes to heritability.[8] IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics, for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults. The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18–20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood. This phenomenon is known as the Wilson Effect.[9] Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores;[10] however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects.[11][12]"

This doesn't disagree with what I have said. IQ is influenced by inherited factors but few inherited factors are influenced by race. There is no evidence that IQ is influenced by race. Therefore Goodone's stupid" thought experiment" is irrelevant.

Okay so you accept that iq is hereditable to an extent (most studies I've seen reported say between 35/80%) but you don't see why it would vary between population groups. But from experience we know that every other genetic variable like eye colour or hair shape or bone density or height or susceptibility to diseases isn't evenly distributed between groups.

Why would iq buck that trend? Feels like you're asking us to believe something that runs entirely against what we know about genetics.

Apologies for the derailment but politically speaking this 'view' might give a better account of the inequalities we see in society than the orthodox view that blames everything on man's inhumanity to man.

PapaJaroApologies for the derailment but politically speaking this 'view' might give a better account of the inequalities we see in society than the orthodox view that blames everything on man's inhumanity to man

IQ is a pretty slippery subject and people don't really seem to know what it actually measures (even scientists argue about it all the time). There are other measures of 'intelligence' but even the very word itself is culture-bound and doesn't translate between languages. Yes, different social groups have different IQs on average but that's all it shows. It doesn't explain anything, it's just a description. There are also many more ways to measure 'intelligence', such as Gardner's multiple intelligences, and I don't think anyone quoting IQ scores as proof of it existing really knows what they're on about without quoting any scientific publications... Psychologists essentially invented the concept and the construct used to assess it so it's artificial and not the only thing out there

@Jaro.... The rest of the wiki you posted kinda backs up that IQ heritability is still very dependent on environmental factors.

"Heritability and caveats[edit]Main article: Heritability"Heritability" is defined as the proportion of variance in a trait which is attributable to genetic variation within a defined population in a specific environment.[1] Heritability takes a value ranging from 0 to 1; a heritability of 1 indicates that all variation in the trait in question is genetic in origin and a heritability of 0 indicates that none of the variation is genetic. The determination of many traits can be considered primarily genetic under similar environmental backgrounds. For example, a 2006 study found that adult height has a heritability estimated at 0.80 when looking only at the height variation within families where the environment should be very similar.[13] Other traits have lower heritabilities, which indicate a relatively larger environmental influence. For example, a twin study on the heritability of depression in men calculated it as 0.29, while it was 0.42 for women in the same study.[14]Contrary to popular[citation needed] belief, two parents of higher IQ will not necessarily produce offspring of equal or higher intelligence. In fact, according to the concept of regression toward the mean, parents whose IQ is at either extreme are more likely to produce offspring with IQ closer to the mean (or average).[15][16]

There are a number of points to consider when interpreting heritability:

Heritability measures the proportion of variation in a trait that can be attributed to genes, and not the proportion of a trait caused by genes. Thus, if the environment relevant to a given trait changes in a way that affects all members of the population equally, the mean value of the trait will change without any change in its heritability (because the variation or differences among individuals in the population will stay the same). This has evidently happened for height: the heritability of stature is high, but average heights continue to increase.[17] Thus, even in developed nations, a high heritability of a trait does not necessarily mean that average group differences are due to genes.[17][18] Some have gone further, and used height as an example in order to argue that "even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability."[19]

A common error is to assume that a heritability figure is necessarily unchangeable. The value of heritability can change if the impact of environment (or of genes) in the population is substantially altered.[17] If the environmental variation encountered by different individuals increases, then the heritability figure would decrease. On the other hand, if everyone had the same environment, then heritability would be 100%. The population in developing nations often has more diverse environments than in developed nations.[citation needed] This would mean that heritability figures would be lower in developing nations. Another example is phenylketonuria which previously caused mental retardation for everyone who had this genetic disorder and thus had a heritability of 100%. Today, this can be prevented by following a modified diet, resulting in a lowered heritability.

A high heritability of a trait does not mean that environmental effects such as learning are not involved. Vocabulary size, for example, is very substantially heritable (and highly correlated with general intelligence) although every word in an individual's vocabulary is learned. In a society in which plenty of words are available in everyone's environment, especially for individuals who are motivated to seek them out, the number of words that individuals actually learn depends to a considerable extent on their genetic predispositions and thus heritability is high.[17]

Since heritability increases during childhood and adolescence, and even increases greatly between 16–20 years of age and adulthood, one should be cautious drawing conclusions regarding the role of genetics and environment from studies where the participants are not followed until they are adults. Furthermore, there may be differences regarding the effects on the g-factor and on non-g factors, with g possibly being harder to affect and environmental interventions disproportionately affecting non-g factors.[20]

Various studies have found the heritability of IQ to be between 0.7 and 0.8 in adults and 0.45 in childhood in the United States.[17][21][22] It may seem reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should become less important as one gains experiences with age. However, that the opposite occurs is well documented. Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.8 in adulthood.[9]One proposed explanation is that people with different genes tend to seek out different environments that reinforce the effects of those genes.[17] The brain undergoes morphological changes in development which suggests that age-related physical changes could also contribute to this effect.[23]A 1994 article in Behavior Genetics based on a study of Swedish monozygotic and dizygotic twins found the heritability of the sample to be as high as 0.80 in general cognitive ability; however, it also varies by trait, with 0.60 for verbal tests, 0.50 for spatial and speed-of-processing tests, and 0.40 for memory tests. In contrast, studies of other populations estimate an average heritability of 0.50 for general cognitive ability.[21]In 2006, The New York Times Magazine listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies.[24]"

tl:dr.... genetics is fucking complicated, particularly when you start adding epigenetics into the mix. It's pretty hard to draw reliable conclusions across the board.

Race and genetics determines IQ and black people are thick, but won't somebody please think of the poor white working class boys getting left behind at school whilst every other social group surpasses them :(

LHCI don't believe IQ is wholly environmental and haven't suggested that. Just because something is affected by genetics doesn't mean it is affected by race. Genotype is rarely determined by race.

So you believe in the heritability of iq to a certain extent. Do you believe in population groups in more or less proximal relationships with each other? Average differences existing between those groups would be a natural outcome of a combination of the two.

The following is from Wikipedia, which is hardly known for being a bastion of racist thinking..

"The heritability of IQ for adults is between 58% and 77%[5] (with some more-recent estimates as high as 80%[6] and 86%.[7]) Genome-wide association studies have identified inherited genome sequence differences that account for 20% of the 50% of the genetic variation that contributes to heritability.[8] IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics, for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults. The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18–20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood. This phenomenon is known as the Wilson Effect.[9] Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores;[10] however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects.[11][12]"

This doesn't disagree with what I have said. IQ is influenced by inherited factors but few inherited factors are influenced by race. There is no evidence that IQ is influenced by race. Therefore Goodone's stupid" thought experiment" is irrelevant.

Okay so you accept that iq is hereditable to an extent (most studies I've seen reported say between 35/80%) but you don't see why it would vary between population groups. But from experience we know that every other genetic variable like eye colour or hair shape or bone density or height or susceptibility to diseases isn't evenly distributed between groups.

Why would iq buck that trend? Feels like you're asking us to believe something that runs entirely against what we know about genetics.

"what we know about genetics" is what there is evidence for, not what you speculate about based on mostly trivial differences such as eye colour. What you are suggesting is what runs against "what we know about genetics" because there is no evidence for what you are suggesting.

wiseacreRace and genetics determines IQ and black people are thick, but won't somebody please think of the poor white working class boys getting left behind at school whilst every other social group surpasses them :(

(goodone, this is sarcasm)

I read an article on the BBC news website with a title something akin to "working class white boys, are they forgotten?".

wiseacreRace and genetics determines IQ and black people are thick, but won't somebody please think of the poor white working class boys getting left behind at school whilst every other social group surpasses them :(

(goodone, this is sarcasm)

I read an article on the BBC news website with a title something akin to "working class white boys, are they forgotten?".

Fucking minorities and their generalised problems.

The white working class is forgotten in the U.K., to be honest. People like to pretend it doesn't exist any more. Many people are ashamed to say they are working class and want to escape it. It should not be a dirty word.

That's not to say it's the fault of migrants, absolutely not. it is a class issue. Both migrants and white working class could have affordable decent housing, better living standards, investment in local services and infrastructure, it is all possible and affordable, and necessary, simply a question of political will, and there is none amongst the political elite.

Minorities will at least have their own advocates within their communities standing up for their rights, but who will do that for the white working class when many white people are determined to escape it rather than be proud of it and advocate for it.

Brexit, Trump, the far right, it hasn't just sprung up from nowhere. Inequality and the broken economic model of neoliberalism is what is driving this anger, resentment, and fear and unhappiness. When people see the blatant unfairness and extreme inequality in society, and politicians that pretend it's all fine and dandy, they get angry. When that anger is left to fester, it will find an outlet. That outlet may well prove to be people like Tommy Robinson playing their divide and rule game. Child abuse campaigner, don't make me laugh.

We can have either build up our country or divide it further and sink to the bottom

wiseacreRace and genetics determines IQ and black people are thick, but won't somebody please think of the poor white working class boys getting left behind at school whilst every other social group surpasses them :(

(goodone, this is sarcasm)

There’s no such thing as race. It’s merely a social construct. Unless of course it can be conveniently used to shut debate, in which case - “racist!”

wiseacreRace and genetics determines IQ and black people are thick, but won't somebody please think of the poor white working class boys getting left behind at school whilst every other social group surpasses them :(

(goodone, this is sarcasm)

I read an article on the BBC news website with a title something akin to "working class white boys, are they forgotten?".

Fucking minorities and their generalised problems.

The white working class is forgotten in the U.K., to be honest. People like to pretend it doesn't exist any more. Many people are ashamed to say they are working class and want to escape it. It should not be a dirty word.

That's not to say it's the fault of migrants, absolutely not. it is a class issue. Both migrants and white working class could have affordable decent housing, better living standards, investment in local services and infrastructure, it is all possible and affordable, and necessary, simply a question of political will, and there is none amongst the political elite.

Minorities will at least have their own advocates within their communities standing up for their rights, but who will do that for the white working class when many white people are determined to escape it rather than be proud of it and advocate for it.

Brexit, Trump, the far right, it hasn't just sprung up from nowhere. Inequality and the broken economic model of neoliberalism is what is driving this anger, resentment, and fear and unhappiness. When people see the blatant unfairness and extreme inequality in society, and politicians that pretend it's all fine and dandy, they get angry. When that anger is left to fester, it will find an outlet. That outlet may well prove to be people like Tommy Robinson playing their divide and rule game. Child abuse campaigner, don't make me laugh.

We can have either build up our country or divide it further and sink to the bottom

Do you think adding half a million to the population every single year, predominantly driven by immigration is going to help or hinder this progress?

ONS figures show 538,000 increase on year before to 65.6 million people, with London experiencing highest growth rate

Does that seem a sensible rate of growth to you? Over a million every two years primarily concentrated in the most populous areas? Might be a few growing pains, no?

I like smoked eggs. He's a good egg. But fucking hell, that is one wall of text.

"Minorities will at least have their own advocates within their communities standing up for their rights, but who will do that for the white working class when many white people are determined to escape it rather than be proud of it and advocate for it."

There are plenty of white "minorities" in English towns all across the UK who've had three generations of non-working families felt hard done by, not earning 500+ a week for unloading trailers of supermarket food keen to blame EU and Non EU migrants for taking their jerbs.

And this is the key. The difference between those who want to work and earn a real wage, and those who want everything provided for free.

This country has never paid a living wage. Not really. Strawberries shouldn't be 2.50. They should be £6 because the people picking them deserve a real wage.

There are plenty of white "minorities" in English towns all across the UK who've had three generations of non-working families felt hard done by, not earning 500+ a week for unloading trailers of supermarket food keen to blame EU and Non EU migrants for taking their jerbs.And this is the key. The difference between those who want to work and earn a real wage, and those who want everything provided for free.This country has never paid a living wage. Not really. Strawberries shouldn't be 2.50. They should be £6 because the people picking them deserve a real wage.

This. I remember watching a documentary during A-level geography that looked at the plight of the old coal towns and the ingrained benefits families there. Nearly everyone interviewed by the presenter basically said that they used to have a skilled job and a decent wage until t' pits closed and all the other jobs being recommended to them were not of the same skill level and they didn't want to do them (warehouses, call centres etc). They played the system, would go to work for a few weeks and then get himself let go so he could sign back on.

A lot of the old working towns feel massively let down by the government, and I think this mindset has probably become entrenched in some areas. A scouse mate still spits when Thatcher is mentioned.

I agree that people need a living wage. How someone survives in London on low wages, I don't know.

I don't think he was claiming Wetherspoons shouldn't be allowed to ban homeless people by law. He was saying the fact that they chose to ban the homeless is a sorry state of affairs that reflects the pretty shameful attitude a lot of people have towards the poorest people in Britain.

I don't think he was claiming Wetherspoons shouldn't be allowed to ban homeless people by law. He was saying the fact that they chose to ban the homeless is a sorry state of affairs that reflects the pretty shameful attitude a lot of people have towards the poorest people in Britain and poverty.

Precisely this, at no point does he say Wetherspoons shouldn't be allowed to do that, and the Wetherspoons bit is more of a lead in to his main point about attitudes to the homeless.

I reckon SW14 didn't even read the article before he chose to get offended by the headline.

Tricky one really. I agree much more needs to be done for the homeless but that said, it’s a private company and having people in there who have been on the street and might not have had access to sanitation for a while isn’t a great look when people are trying to eat near them.

Jones’ article typically omits the fact they were given takeaway boxes and told they could keep the cutlery.